A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy

Chapter 2.


As afore mentioned, the most ancient Kingdom, of which survive only the vaguest of records, is The Ancient First Rome or Old Rome in the Nile Valley. In the Scaliger's version of history, which was created in the XVII century, there was a kingdom in the Nile Valley which was called Egypt. This seems to be incorrect. The original Biblical Egypt bears no relation to this kingdom. The 'Egypt' of the Old Testament Pentateuch – is in fact the Rus'-Horde (the Russian-Horde Empire) of XIV-XVI cc. [6v1], ch.4. But hereafter the Biblical name Egypt=Gypt=Kipchak was ascribed to Africa and attributed to a truly ancient Kingdom in the Nile Valley. This resulted in confusion.

In the X-XI cc. the capital of this Kingdom moves to the city of Yoros on the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus. We will provisionally call it The Second Rome. Aka Jerusalem of the Gospels, aka 'ancient' Troy. Then the capital moved to Rus', to Yaroslavl – Veliky Novgorod, aka 'ancient' Rome. This in total was The Third Rome, which the majority of 'ancient authors' consider to be the first disregarding the previous incarnations. After a while the capital of the Empire returned to Bosphorus, but not to its former location, it moved to the other side of Bosphorus, to its European shore, not its Asiatic shore. It was there that medieval Constantinople emerged, aka medieval Tsar-Grad of the end of XIV-XV cc., subsequently - Turkish (Ottoman) Istanbul. Overall it was The Fourth Rome, or in a shorter count – the second. As we know Moscow was subsequently called the Third Rome (according to the short count). In some old texts Tsar-Grad was referred to as Kiev. That is why some of the significant historical events in 'Kiev' in fact unfolded in Tsar-Grad on the Bosphorus.

To summarise, 1st Rome: the Nile Valley (Alexandria, Cairo); 2nd Rome: Yoros = Jerusalem = Troy; 3rd Rome: Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' = Veliky Novgorod (Yaroslavl, Vladimir) = Rome of Enei-Rurik; 4th Rome; Constantinople; 5th Rome: Moscow.

But when in the XVI century Romes were counted, where Moscow was numbered as the Third Rome (and not the Fifth), they have clearly started counting not from the deep antiquity of African Egypt, but from Rome of Enei-Rurik, i.e. from Yaroslavl, from the Empire of the great conquest epoch: Veliky Novgorod – First Rome, Constantinople – Second Rome, Moscow – Third Rome. Hereafter the historians replaced Veliky Novgorod with Rome in Italy and the present picture panned was formed.

To repeat: the original Biblical Jerusalem (the city of Yoros) is situated on the eastern, Asiatic shore of Bosphorus, closer to the Black Sea, very near to the Beykoz mountain (Golgotha) [ЗИ]

In 2006 in front of the entrance to the Yoros fortress there remained to this day a shield bearing a name: Fortress Yoros – in Turkish: Yoros kalesi [ЗИ], ch.3. It is notable that you come across this name literally every step in the immediate vicinity of the fortress. For example, a street leading to the fortress, a restaurant situated close to the fortress, etc.- all bear the name Fortress Yoros. But YOROS (IOROS) is a simple abbreviation of JEROSALEM. By the way, in Latin this word is also spelled with an 'o' - Hierosolyma.
Fig.4 shows an old painting, apparently from the XVIII-XIX cc., depicting the Turks resting on Beykoz mountain close to 'the grave of holy Jesus (Yusha or Yusa)'. The undoubtable focal point of the whole composition is the picturesque remains of an imposing age-old fortress. It stands on the very shore of the Bosphorus on a hill next to Beykoz. The impressive ruins of the old Yoros fortress survive to this day [ЗИ], ch.3.
Thus the Turkish name of this old fortress on the Bosphorus - Yoros (Ioros), precisely corresponds with the first half of the word IEROSALIM in its old pre-reform spelling. Moreover this fortress is located PRECISELY in the very place where the Biblical Jerusalem was supposed to be situated according to our research.

The fortifications of Yoros, the remains of which are visible today, were built in 1261 A.D. In fact, the distance from Yoros-Jerusalem to the top of Beykoz-Golgotha is about two hours walk, which corresponds well with the Gospels.

Surprisingly we could not find the name of 'Yoros' in the Bosphorus on any modern map which we have seen. On many maps the Yoros Fortress is not marked at all, despite its imposing size. On other maps it is marked under completely different names, not at all resembling the word 'Ierosalim'. However, when we asked an archaeologist from Istanbul if he knew of the fortress Yoros outside Istanbul, he replied that yes, he knew it, and that this old Christian fortress is well known to the regional historians and locals. It turns out that historians – cartographers are attempting to conceal important information, which can cause 'awkward' questions or plant the seeds of doubt about the validity of Scaliger's version of history.

We discovered that the same city on the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus (at its Northern exit into the Black Sea) was called by a number of names: 1) Yoros, i.e. Jerusalem. 2) Chrisople, i.e. City of Christ (City of Gold). 3) P+Christo (PChristo), meaning quite clearly: City of Christ (Polis + Christo). 4) Sanctuary of the god Jupiter (Zeus), sending fair winds. 5) Simply 'Sanctuary'. We see one of these names on the old maps. [ГРК] ch.4:1.

Incidentally it is interesting to look carefully at the representation of the crucifixion. It appears that in many paintings, icons and frescoes Christ's crucifixion is shown with a background of either a big sea strait or a wide river. Besides the artists were painting in particular either a strait or a river, but by no means a sea, fig.5. So, by depicting water, the opposite shore was always shown [5v1], ch.14. As we understand it now, it could not have been otherwise, as the Beykoz mountain is situated right on the shore of the wide Bosphorus. From there can be seen very clearly the European shore of the strait, where the centre of Constantinople is situated, which could have been also considered the Biblical Jerusalem later on, when the capital was relocated here from the city-fortress Yoros. Any artist, had a more or less accurate recollection of the original story, would have depicted the Bosphorus strait as a significant part of the landscape, which served as a backdrop to the site of Christ's crucifixion.

The strategic location of Yoros-Jerusalem is ideal. It controlled the narrowest part of the Bosphorus close to the entrance into the Black Sea. Subsequently, it is conceivable, that at the end of the XIV century, during the relocation of the Empire's capital from Ancient Rome (i.e. Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' of the XIII-XIV cc.) to New Rome = Constantinople by Dmitriy Donskoy=Constantine the Great, the location of the new capital was slightly moved in relation to ancient Troy-Jerusalem-Yoros towards the Marble Sea and relocated it to the European shore of the Bosphorus, where there was a flatter terrain [KR] .

But let's go back to the XII century. The power of Romea in the XI-XII cc. spreads over many regions in the West and the East, where the femas-provinces of Tsar-Grad are located. Generally speaking each fema was an independent state formation, but was headed by a Romaic legate - a king, a tsar or a duke. He was a vassal of Biblical Jerusalem = Tsar-Grad (Yoros) in the Bosphorus.
Among such femas-provinces were: African Egypt, Rus'-Horde, territories of Western Europe, where consequently (in the XVI-XVII cc.) there would emerge – Germany, Italy, England and Spain, etc. The subordination of these femas to the imperial centre was reasonably flexible. One of the characteristics of such vassal state was the payment of tax to Jerusalem = Tsar-Grad (Yoros). Besides, starting in the end of the XII century, the femas were united by shared Christian religion. Tsar-Grad – universally recognized as the religious centre of the Kingdom as a whole. It could be that the word 'fema' or 'TEMA' has a connection with a Horde-Tatar word 'Tumen', i.e. a Russian word 'T'MA', which denoted a military unit (t'ma = many).

Independent local history in femas was hardly recorded. Meanwhile chronicles are being written only in Tsar-Grad, as the capital of the Kingdom. They mainly reflect the events which interested Jerusalem=Troy in the Bosphorus. Copies of these chronicles sometimes emerge in some of the Romaic femas-provinces. But these texts mainly tell us about the events in the metropolis. And only fleetingly about local events.
Jerusalem = Tsar-Grad (Yoros) in the Bosphorus in the XI-XII cc. was the capital of a strong Romaic Kingdom. We should also note the brilliant strategic position of the later Istanbul as well, its formidable defences. The gigantic walls of Constantinople, which in places have several rows, were repeatedly rebuilt and reinforced [5v].Its impressive remains survive intact) to this day.


In the XII century significant events take place, as described in the Gospels: the coming of Jesus Christ, his life and crucifixion, although the existing text of the Gospels was edited and most likely dates to the XIV-XV cc.

In the mid XII century, in the year 1152, Jesus Christ is born. In secular Byzantine history he is known as Emperor Andronicus and St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called.In Russian history he was portrayed as the Great Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky. To be more specific, Andrey Bogolyubsky is a chronicular counterpart of Andronicus-Christ during his stay in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus’ of the XII century, where he spent most of his life. In fact the Star of Bethlehem blazed in the middle of the XII century. This gives us an absolute astronomical dating of Christ’s Life. [ЦРС], ch.1. ‘Star of Bethlehem’ – is an explosion of a supernova, which at present is incorrectly dated to the middle of the XI century. The present-day Crab Nebula in the Taurus Constellation is the remnant of this explosion.  [TsOS]

Could there be such a date amidst the absolute astronomic dating, which would accurately correspond to the crucifixion of Christ at the end of the XII century? After all, it is entirely possible that such a significant event would be immortalised in some astronomical image, let’s say on a zodiac with a horoscope. For example, in ‘Ancient’ Egypt, near the Empire tsars’ burial ground. Let us turn to the results for the dating of the ‘ancient’-Egyptian zodiacs which we have previously calculated. You will recall, that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ took place during the days of Jewish Passover, not long from the first vernal full moon.>

CONCLUSION. Among the zodiacs dated by us, there is one, which gives the exact date of the Jewish Passover = the date of the first day of the vernal full moon. We are referring to a famous Circular Denderah zodiac or, as it is also called, Osiris Zodiac, fig.6. This Zodiac gives us the date of the Passover – the morning of the 20th March 1185, and perfectly corresponds with the date of crucifixion of Jesus Christ in year 1185 [ЦРС], ch.1. Besides, the date of the Circular Zodiac corresponds well with the dating of the Star of Bethlehem, which appeared approximately around year 1150, as it allows for Christ’s age to be approximately 33 years.

In fact ‘Osiris Zodiac’ means ‘Zodiac of Christ’, as, according to our research, the ‘ancient’-Egyptian god Osiris represented Jesus Christ. [5v], [ЦРС].>

The Virgin Mary, the mother of Andronicus-Christ, was originally from Rus’. It’s no coincidence that in the ancient documents Rus’ was sometimes referred to as the House of Holy Mother of God. Afterwards Mary lived in Tsar-Grad = ‘ancient’ Troy. Andronicus-Christ and Mary spent a lot of time in Rus’. They fled there, i.e. return to their motherland, escaping persecution in Tsar-Grad. This event was described in the Gospels as the Escape of the Holy Family from King Herod to Egypt.

Biblical ‘Egypt’, - aka Egypt of the ‘ancient’ pharaohs – is Rus’-Horde of the XIII-XVI cc. In a well-known Gospel story, the details of Christ’s life after the escape to Egypt, up to his return Jerusalem at the age of approximately 30 years old, are enshrouded in mystery. Most likely, the significant part of that time Andronicus-Christ and his mother spent in Rus’. Besides, the name ‘India’ referred to the whole of Rus’-Horde, and not just to the territory of modern Hindustan. It is possible that this is reason why some of the medieval texts, which are today deemed apocryphal, claim that Christ lived in ‘India’ for a long time.

Having then returned from Rus’ back to Tsar-Grad (Yoros), the emperor Andronicus-Christ (according to the Russians chronicles – the Great Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky) implemented important state reforms, impeded corruption, made life easier for the common people. Trade and agriculture were booming. But the reforms raised the ire and hatred of the nobility. This resulted in a plot in the capital which led to a bloody rebellion. In 1185 the Emperor Andronicus-Christ was deposed and crucified in Tsar-Grad on the Beykoz mountain = Biblical Golgotha, on the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus, close to Yoros.

Until now there remained an enormous ‘grave’, which is known as: ‘a grave of Yusha (Jesus)’. Beykoz is the highest of the mountains of the Upper Bosphorus, 180 metres above sea level. It is situated close the ruins of the city and fortress of Yoros (Biblical Jerusalem). ‘Yusha’s grave’ is not the real grave of Jesus Christ, but a large fenced off plot of land, approximately 3 by 17 metres, where Jesus was crucified, fig.7, fig.8. This is to say, they commemorated this sacred ‘location’ [6v2], ch.5.

Not far from the grave of holy Yusha – Jesus, at the foot of the Beykoz mountain, there are three other enormous graves nearly 7-8 metres long. These are the graves of Kirklar Sultan, Uzun Elviya Leblebici Baba and Akbaba Sultan. On the other side of the Bosphorus, i.e. its European shore, there were, as the local legends say, several similar looking immense graves of the saints. They are, probably, symbolic resting places of the disciples of Jesus Christ.

So, on the Beykoz mountain of Tsar-Grad, near Yoros-Jerusalem, there is a miraculously well preserved memorial (possibly reconstructed) providing us with a tangible reminder of the crucifixion of Andronicus-Christ in this very place.

As a result of a coup and a bloody rebellion in 1185 a new dynasty of Angels came to power. It is considered that ‘Angel’ is in this case a family name. However, it is quite possible that in the times of Andronicus-Christ this word represented the Tsarist officials in general. Hence is derived angels, ‘celestial hierarchy’, i.e. God’s ministers, according to the Holy Bible. It is possible, that the well-known story in the Holy Bible about Satan – an evil angel, who rebelled against God and wished to usurp Him, originated from there.

Let’s refer to the Byzantine chronicler Niketas Choniates. In regards to Andronicus-Christ it says, that he was a foreigner, who lived for a long time amongst the barbarians (as we understand he meant - in Rus’). Having arrived to Tsar-Grad, he surrounded himself with a barbarian army and introduced barbaric customs into the country. For example, the Russian pantaloons [ЦРС], ch.2:61. Now the picture becomes clearer. Andronicus-Christ was the son of Virgin Mary, who was originally from Rus’. It was here in Rus’ where Andronicus-Christ spent his childhood. Later he lived in Tsar-Grad. Then he again returned to Rus’ and spent many of his adult years here. Perhaps Andronicus-Christ’s particular affection towards Rus’ wasn’t to everyone’s liking in Tsar-Grad. And during a tense period of political crisis and rebellion, the matter of Andronicus-Christ’s foreign roots surfaced. The rebels started using it to malign the Emperor.

Therefore, the events described in Gospels, took place in Yoros (Jerusalem) in Bosphorus during the second half of the XII century. And the city of modern Palestine, which today is referred to as Jerusalem, was in fact ‘fabricated’ from a small Arab settlement called Al-Quds in a rather desolate area in the Middle East not earlier than the XVII or even the XVIII century. It was declared a center of worship. It bears no relation to the events in the Gospel. The falsifiers of the XVII-XIX cc. pursued a clear objective: to relocate – on paper! – The Gospel events far away from the real Jerusalem = Tsar-Grad, in order to cast into oblivion a significant part of authentic history.

To conclude, the emperor Andronicus-Christ, - aka the great Russian prince Andrey Bogolyubsky, aka apostle Andrey Pervozvanny (St. Andrew the First-Called),- was crucified in Tsar-Grad (Yoros) = Jerusalem in 1185.

The Gospel life of Jesus Christ in GALILEE represents Andronicus’ stay in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus’, in the suburbs of the city Galitch Kostromskoy, which in a local dialect was pronounced as GALION. Gospel city of CANA in Galilee, therefore, was a Canian or Khahnian settlement in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus’. Consequently, year zero of the era of the ‘Year of Our Lord’ (AD) was year 1152 AD.

Up until the epoch of the XVII century, when writing down the dates, the Roman numeral X, i.e. ‘ten’, in Latin denoting a century (for example, XI century), was simply the first letter X of the name of Jesus Christ (written in Cyrillic: Ch=X – translator’s note). That is why initially an abbreviation: ‘XI century’ – meant ‘Christ’s First century’,i.e.: First Century of Christ’s Incarnation. Therefore, the letter ‘X’ was separated from the following numerals with a dot, i.e. they wrote X.I, X.II. etc. [1v.] That was the way the Christian calendar appeared. During that epoch all the dates were written down starting with the name of Jesus Christ, i.e. letter ’X’ or letter ‘I’. The fact is that the Roman numeral I, i.e. ‘one’, - in the Arabic representation of a year, for example year 1255, initially was the first letter I of the name Jesus. So the expression ‘Year I.255’ in those distant times meant: ‘from Jesus year 255’. Up until the XVI-XVII cc. there remained the tradition of recording dates by the way of: either X. (followed by numerals), or I. (followed by numerals), in other words, by separating with a dot letters X and I from the other numerals which represented the date itself. Sometimes J was used instead of I. See multiple examples in the book by A.T.Fomenko [1v], ch.6:12-13

Over many centuries, in the XVII century to be precise, the creation of the ‘reformed’ version of history began. It aimed to distort the history of the XI-XVI cc. beyond recognition. In particular it was achieved by distorting the chronology. The first letter X (i.e. Christ) slyly declared to be the representation of ‘ten centuries’ in the dates, and the first letter I (i.e. Jesus) was purported to represent a ‘thousand’. As the result of it the dates were artificially made older by approximately 1000 years. Massive blocks of events of the XI-XVII cc. ‘slid down’ by approximately a thousand years. Phantom ‘antiquity’ thus appeared.

Our conclusion perfectly corresponds with a well-known fact, that the medieval “Italians used hundreds to represent centuries: TRECENTE (i.e. YEARS - THREE HUNDREDs)- the XIV century, QUATTROCENTE (i.e. YEARS - FOUR HUNDREDs) – the XV century, CINQUECENTE (i.e. YEARS - FIVE HUNDREDs) – the XVI century” [242], p.25. But then such naming of the centuries INDICATES DIRECTLY THAT THE STARTING POINT FOR COUNTING COMMENCES EXACTLY FROM THE XI CENTURY, as it disregards todays conventional method of adding a ‘thousand years’. It turns out, that the medieval Italians didn’t know any ‘thousand years’. As we understand it now, the reason for it was simply because, there was no ‘spare thousand years’.

We have described a mechanism of the way of one of the three principle chronological shift originated, approximately by a thousand years. The causes for the other two shifts – approximately by 330 and 1800 years – are analogous and, besides, can be explained by the mistakes of the chronologists of the XIV-XV cc., who relied on the erroneous astronomical data and methods. In the book by A.T.Fomenko [1v] the chronological shifts were provisionally called the following: 1) The Roman-Byzantine shift by 330-360 years, 2) The Roman shift by either 1053 or 1153 years, 3) The Greek-Biblical shift by 1780-1880 years.

The Roman-Byzantine shift made the history of Rome-Byzantine longer by forcing it into the past. The Roman shift made the history of the Roman Empire ‘more ancient’. The Greek-Biblical shift made the history of Greece and all Biblical history far older by forcing it into the past.



We are all familiar with the medical term ‘caesarean section’ or ‘caesarean’. In other words, when labour does not occur naturally, but by means of an incision in the abdomen. Why is this incision called ‘Caesarean’? Because, according to some sources, that was exactly the way Julius Caesar was delivered at birth. For example in an old Russian Palaea we read: “The original Roman kingdom of Iulii Kesar. In the third year of Cleopatra’s reign Iulii Kesar named VYPOROTOK (meaning ‘ripped’ or ‘torn’ - translator’s note) started his rule in Rome.” [625:1], page 254.

The nickname ‘vyporotok’ could perhaps mean, that he was ripped or torn out of his mother’s womb. In other words he was removed by means of a medical procedure through an incision or section. This is the origin of the expression ‘ caesarean section ’.

But on the other hand, similar information has survived about Christ too. Though little known today, but clearly expressed in the canonical church service. For example in the old Church Slavonic triadic canon of the second mode, recited on Sundays midnight vespers. Irmos of the ninth song of this canon sounds like this: (in English translation) : “Him, who before the Sun – God’s lantern – shined, and in flesh came FROM VIRGIN’S SIDE, infinitely incarnated, blessed and pure, we praise You, Mother of God”. [537:2], p.66; [537:3], p.134.

The words : “(He) came in flesh from virgin’s side” are hard to interpret in any other way but as the birth of Christ via caesarean section by Virgin Mary Theotokos.

Jesus’ birth by the caesarean section left its imprint not only in the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church. This event was much talked about in the Middle Ages and spawned a multitude of views, theories and myths. The first thing that should be noted is the claim of the orthodox doctrine, that Theotokos (the Birthgiver) REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER CHRIST’S BIRTH. These words are directly present in the Orthodox sacred worship, see above. Besides, this theme is in detail discussed in so called Apocrypha.

To clarify, prior to the XVII century there were a lot of various pieces of writings about Christ. In the XVII century a new regime prohibited them and declared them to be ‘apocryphal’. At the same time many of them were considered canonical enough works even in the XVI century. They formed part of the authoritative canonical books, were copied in the monasteries along with the four canonical Gospels, creation of the holy fathers and Christian catechisms. One of the ways of disparaging the ‘inconvenient texts’ in the XVII century was the following: they started to name some of the ‘irritating sources’ - ‘Gospels’ (although they were not called that in the Church Slavonic tradition). For example they began to call the works attributed to Thomas the Apostle – ‘Gospel according to Thomas’. The idea is clear. The reformists were achieving the following goal: in the Christian world it was well known that in one of the Ecumenical Councils the four canonical Gospels, deemed appropriate for worship, were selected. The Gospels were the texts that ought to be read in the church. And, clearly, they ought to be officially approved. In this sense all the other Gospels were renounced But it didn’t mean that they were rejected entirely. They could remain as so called reference books. They could be kept at home and copied. But cunning reformists, by attaching the name ‘Gospel’ to any old text which displeased them, automatically labelled them as ‘incorrect, forbidden Gospels’.

Let’s refer to so called ‘Infancy Gospel of Thomas’ : “And found (Joseph – Ath.) a cave there… And appeared the new-born, emerged and took breast of his mother Mary. And exclaimed and old woman… and she came out of the cave and met Salome, and said to her: Salome, Salome, I would like to tell you about a MIRACLE: A VIRGIN GAVE BIRTH AND KEPT HER VIRGINITY.” [307], p.217.

Here is another text called ‘Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew’. ‘And when Zeloma approached Mary…she cried out loudly: I have never thought or heard of anything like this: Her breast is full of milk and She has a baby boy, though SHE IS A VIRGIN. There was nothing impure at the conception and NO SICKNESS IN BIRTH. She conceived being a virgin, GAVE BIRTH AS A VIRGIN, AND REMAINS A VIRGIN’ [307], p.243.

Such an insistent claim in the sources, that Theotokos (Birthgiver) REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER GIVING BIRTH corresponds perfectly with Christ’s birth via caesarean section.

As it happens, Christ is also mentioned in the Talmud. Although << the image of Jesus presented by the Talmud is a combination of various Judaic legends, rabbis’ commentaries and simply rumours… It is considered that Jesus appears in the Talmud under different names. The name of “JESUS, SON OF PANTERA (PANTIRA)” … is mentioned several times… the origin of the name “son of Pantera” presents us with a conundrum>> [307], p.301-302.

In regards to PANTERA scholars write: <<The etymology of the non-Jewish name Pantera has for many years presented a challenge to researchers… A theory was put forward, that the name Pantera (Pantira) appeared as a result of a linguistic mistake in the form of an incorrect reproduction of a Greek word ‘parthenos’ (Παρθ?νος) – ‘virgin’>> [307], p.305.

In our opinion the Greek word PARTHENOS, i.e. VIRGIN (and this is exactly how the word VIRGIN sounds in the Greek Gospels) [307], p.305, has appeared in the Christian tradition as a recollection of the caesarean section of Christ’s birth. The word PARTHENOS originated from a Slavonic word POROT’, meaning ‘to rip open’, ‘to cut the body’ when performing the caesarean section. Furthermore, perhaps it contains a meaning of not only TO CUT OPEN, but also TO SEW UP, as PARTHENOS reminds us of a word PORTNOI (meaning A TAILOR), i.e. a person, who cuts and sews up. Naturally, after performing a caesarean section a doctor has to sew the wound up.

And Talmudic PANTERA (PANTIRA), most likely, originates (as does PARTHENOS) from the same Slavonic word POROT’(TO CUT OPEN), PORTNOI (A TAILOR). That is why the authors of the XIX century, who associated this word with PARTHENOS, were correct.

But then immediately comes to mind a well-known myth about the birth of the ‘most ancient’ goddess Athena ‘via a cut in Zeus’ head’. Since long ago scientists became aware of the similarity between the ‘ancient’ Greek Athena Parthenos and medieval Christian Theotokos of Athenes. In the medieval times the famous Athenian Parthenon was nothing other than a Temple of the Virgin Mary Theotokos [2v1], ch.1. Besides, Athena was also called PALLAS. The word Pallas means A VIRGIN. The ‘ancient’ Greek myths constantly emphasise that Athena was A VIRGIN [196:1], p.60, 112, 114.

So the Christian origin of the myth about Athena’s birth is thus elucidated. ‘Zeus… swallowed whole his pregnant wife and afterwards with the help of Hephaestus (or Prometheus), who cleaved Zeus's head with the axe, he sired Athena who leaped from Zeus's head, fully armed, with a warlike cry’ [533], v.1, p.126. Through these fantastical details can be dimly perceived the birth of Jesus by caesarean section from the Virgin Mary. Here Virgin = Athena ‘changes places’ with Jesus = Zeus: but the Virgin doesn’t give birth to Jesus, but Jesus (Zeus) gives birth to the Virgin. The incision in the ‘Greek’ myth wholly remains, but ‘moves’ to the god’s head. Incidentally, another character is also mentioned here – a doctor, who performed the incision. He was called Prometheus or Hephaestus

This most ‘ancient’ of Greek myths could have appeared while observing the Orthodox icon ‘The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary’ fig.9 [ЦРС], ch.2.

The Virgin Mary is on her deathbed, Christ stands above her and holds in his hands, at his shoulder level, a tiny figure of the Virgin Mary swaddled in a white piece of cloth. Surely, a person, who knows icon-painting well, understands that this small figure symbolises here The Virgin Mary’s soul. But a lay person and moreover a visitor from afar, who knows little about the tradition of icon-painting, could easily interpret such an image as the birth of a little maiden from an adult God. Next the imagination would take over. As a girl was painted close to Christ’s head it ‘therefore meant that she was born from the head’. And so on. Having returned home, to ‘ancient’ Greece of the XIV-XVI cc. from a distant capital of the Great = ‘Mongol’ Empire, the awed traveler would share with his fellow citizens is ‘deep knowledge’ about the life of the Olympian gods on faraway Olympus. That is how an ‘ancient’ myth could have been born. It was Rus’ that was considered to be “Virgin Mary’s Home’ as she had spent the significant part of her life in Rus’ and died there [XP].That is why the images of ‘Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary’ originated in Rus’. And later, as Christianity was progressing in Western Europe, the images, inspired by these Orthodox icons, appeared there as well.

But let us return to Zeus. It appears, that he gave birth not only to Athena, but also to Dionysus=Bacchus: <<Having disguised himself as a mortal, Zeus had a secret love affair with Semele (‘Earth’) … Hera… advised Semele, who was already six months pregnant, to demand her of her mysterious lover to reveal his true form… He came to her wreathed in bolts of lightning and roars of thunder and incinerated her. However, Hermes> managed to save her six months premature son. Hermes SEWED A BABY INTO ZEUS’ THIGH, AND AFTER THREE MONTHS, IN DUE TIME ZEUS GAVE BIRTH TO HIM. Hence Dionysus is called ‘twice-born’ or ‘a child of double doors’>>[196:1], p.69.

In this myth, as in the Judaic texts, Christ kind sort of gives birth to himself from his thigh. Here Zeus is Jesus, and Dio-nysus = Nicaean God is also Jesus. The commentators explained such parallels by purportedly adopting the doctrines of Christianity from the more archaic pagan beliefs. But in the new chronology the picture is reverse. Pagan cultures were variations of Christianity, common in the Middle Ages. Besides the mainstream of Christianity, there existed various sects and cults. They were later declared to be “the most ‘ancient pagan’ religions. And then, already in the XIX century, they were surprised to discover that they suspiciously resembled Christianity. A vast platform opened for the ‘scientific explanation’ of this phenomenon.

Given examples (many others are pointed out in our books of the ‘golden series’ B) illustrate how wide spread the myth of the birth of Jesus by caesarean section really is. This event generated a multitude of versions, notably in places of wide ranging geographic and linguistic diversity.